cgksheff Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Yes they have accepted him as a driver in the past on the same car So. Ask them if they have actually changed their policy since then? If so, when? If so, where can you see the details of that change of policy? If not, get him on the insurance. Is your Zafira defined (in their eyes) as a "Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle"? It is possible that they were mistaken when they insured him before. They do have a policy of size limitation for under-25s .... with exceptions for WVAs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbdullaJones Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 they are realy clamping down on this...and with good reason I know of some one who has had brand new cars for years via his mothers mobilty along with tax no test as they are new and not sure if the insurance is also paid ? now for about the 8 years or so I have know this person I have never seen the mother in the car and it is just used for outings -holadays - and genral day to day use .. I realy think if the mobilty give ppl a free car with all the trimmings they should have to log or report everytime the car is used and the reason it is used for along with proof and mileage checks .. and not just be a fancy new car for a family member to own and use like they own it for fun and daily driveing ... also as some one say's above taxis are cheaper or even a bus and if you don't like taxis or the bus then pay your own insurance for your very own chauffeur ! I think thats a fab idea. It would weed out many of the thieves who rip off the mobility scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbdullaJones Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 So based on the one person you know who seemingly is abusing the system,every other genuine person should be asked to do the things you are suggesting,get real. For every one you know about i bet there are 50 you dont. 50 at least.!! Anyone who says its not fair or who has a problem with it clearly has something to hide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Ah the old "you must have something to hide argument."... Privacy is about control. When your health records are sold to a pharmaceutical company without your permission; when a social-networking site changes your privacy settings to make what used to be visible only to your friends visible to everyone; when the NSA eavesdrops on everyone’s e-mail conversations — your loss of control over that information is the issue. We may not mind sharing our personal lives and thoughts, but we want to control how, where and with whom. A privacy failure is a control failure. - Schneier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbdullaJones Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Ah the old "you must have something to hide argument."... Not really. More something to prove. If my taxs are paying for people to have free cars, free servicing, free repairs, free this, free that then i want to know my taxs arent been wasted on non essential journeys. That way when they give the car back after a few years in return for a brand spanking new one the resale value will be higher and more money can be clawed back. Reasonable, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 That's a reasonable request yes. It's not reasonable or even logical to assume that people objecting to an over the top form of survellience are up to no good. For instance, I could ask you to detail when you had sex over the last year. If you rightly tell me to sod off, that doesn't mean I get to assume you've been abusing donkeys now does it? It just means that you object to someone spying on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbdullaJones Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 That's a reasonable request yes. It's not reasonable or even logical to assume that people objecting to an over the top form of survellience are up to no good. For instance, I could ask you to detail when you had sex over the last year. If you rightly tell me to sod off, that doesn't mean I get to assume you've been abusing donkeys now does it? It just means that you object to someone spying on you. Depends if you are the one paying for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Irrelevant. I'm paying for your medical treatment but I'd be very surprised if you had no objections to me accessing all your medical records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbdullaJones Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Irrelevant. No its not. I'm paying for your medical treatment . No you arent. but I'd be very surprised if you had no objections to me accessing all your medical records. Of course id object. I pay for my own medical treatment so you have no right to know anything. I however help pay towards motability so i feel i have a right to know where the money goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 No its not. No you arent. Of course id object. I pay for my own medical treatment so you have no right to know anything. I however help pay towards motability so i feel i have a right to know where the money goes. I don't beleive you. Prove please you are paying for it entirely yourself. If not you must be hiding something right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.